Matthew Le God

This is a thread about religion, I'm discussing the religious definition of faith.

This is a thread about religion, I'm discussing the religious definition of faith. In the Bible, faith is defined as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Essentially, it's a firm belief and trust in God, even when there's no visible proof or guarantee.

No I do not have faith in anything. Faith is the excuse people use if they do not have evidence. If you had evidence, you would use it and not faith. If I do not have evidence for something, I do not believe in it.

The evidence is his actions. No need for further justification. No faith required.

Wilcox joined after we were relegated.

I do not have faith in anything. Faith is the excuse people use if they do not have evidence. If you had evidence, you would use it and not faith. If I do not have evidence for something, I do not believe in it.

They couldn't afford his wages.

@egg A mod @Lighthouse should be able to confirm that nothing from the original post is different. If they wanted to join in with this nonsense!

Bullshit! Nothing was altered from the original post. The original text remains exactly how it was. All that changed was I added the second bit.

Bullshit. Nothing was removed from the post. All I did was add the second bit. Everything that was in the original post is still in it. So what on earth are you talking about? A mod should be able to confirm that if they look at the post edit record.

Wrong! It was asking why the intolerance I was accused of was a bad thing, not intolerance in general. I then added examples of types of intolerance that are not bad to show intolerance is not automatically bad by default.

Give an example of this and why it is a bad thing. Intolerance is not automatically a bad thing. Is intolerance of the following a bad thing? 1. Intolerance of injustice 2. Intolerance of abuse 3. Intolerance of corruption 4. Intolerance of dishonesty in critical roles 5. Intolerance of cruelty 6. Intolerance of authoritarianism 7. Intolerance of apathy in the face of suffering

What about his 18 goals in 40 Championship games?

Yet more petty insults that are irrelevant to the discussion and are against the forum rules. Not that they seem to be applied...

1) It is not demonstrable evidence that connects to the deity theyve picked. That is the issue. 2) If a plan endorses or commits genocide, slavery, sexism, infanticide and rape then that is incompatible with it being a good entity. 3) The answer for 2 above also answers this. 4) No, you do not understand burden of proof. Because I have not claimed there is no God, I just reject any God claim I've seen so far sue to lack of sufficient evidence. If someone rejects a God claim, that does not mean they are taking the opposite position. Yet you keep using a strawman fallacy saying I've said there is no God. No, I reject the claims I've seen. That is not the same thing and the burden is with the claimant.

No Give an example of the type of thing you mean.

What a great rebuttal!

1) If they believe things without evidence, then they are by definition being irrational 2) Who you fall in love with is not a choice. Humans are also not unique with having same sex relationships. Other animals do as well. So God isn't doing a great job if he designed his creation in a way he finds abhorrent! What about the others I mentioned... genocide, slavery, sexism, infanticide, rape? Are those justifiable? 3) If they think genocide, infanticide, slavery, rape, homophobia and sexism are acceptable then that say a lot about them! Do you think those things are all acceptable? 4) Again... you show a lack of understanding what the burden of proof is. It is on the person making a claim, not those that don't accept it. I have not claimed there is no God. So you saying I have... is a strawman fallacy.

Because they are clearly contradictory! The God of Bible has no wiggle room where he can coexist with Egyptian Gods, Viking Gods etc etc.

1) Asking for evidence is not 'narrow minded'... it is rational. 2) What 'faith in yourself' are you claiming? I believe in things that there is evidence for. If there isn't evidence... I don't believe in it and withold belief until the p5iint there is evidence. No faith is required.

You have now used an agumentum ad populum fallacy Deeply flawed especially when millions of others believe in different conflicting deities. They can't all be correct, so numbers of believers are no indicator of truth.

That does not clarify anything. It is wishy washy vague nonsense. What does it mean in reality? What life? What does 'beyond science' mean exactly?

1) Show a post of mine where I said they can only follow it if they justify it. 2) Nonsense. I do not have faith in anything. I have no need for faith. 3) That doesn't answer the missed questions.

That is ridiculously vague. What do you mean exactly?

1) Strawman fallacy At no point have said they can only follow it if they justify it 2) Faith is the excuse people give if they don't have evidence. If you had evidence... you'd use it and have no need for faith. Faith is therefore irrational. Is there anything someone could not believe in using faith? Is it possible to believe opposing things using faith? If so... it can't be a reliable source to truth. 3) Try answering the questioms